Talk:Greece runestones/GA1

GA Review: Pass

Reviewer's Comments: I think the article makes a "good" (i.e. well-written, accurate and interesting) presentation of the available information pertaining to the particular subject matter. All of the requirements for attaining GA-status have been met (see below). The images are particularly noteworthy for their high quality, and they add immense value to the article itself. I congratulate the contributing editor for his excellent work. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 17:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)¨

Thanks for your encouraging words, and also for all you help and constructive feedback.--Berig (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose): PASS

b (MoS): PASS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): PASS

b (reliable sources): PASS

c (original research): PASS

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): PASS

b (focus): PASS

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. PASS

5. It is stable. PASS

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.

a (tagged): PASS

b (appropriate): PASS

Preliminary Review completed: Aryaman (Enlist!) 17:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Secondary Review completed: Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Final Review completed: result: Pass Aryaman (Enlist!) 17:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

Reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to fix problems with the article under review. The following suggestions are open to discussion by the contributing editors. If the suggested changes are acceptable to the contributing editors, they may undertake the changes immediately, or wait 3 days for the reviewer to do so.

General Remarks:

• Style Suggestion: move references to the end of sentences. (See: WP:CS)
• Style: Consider using the common names of the individual stones next to their classificatory designations. For example, Hansta or Hägerstalund Stone (U 73) is much more reader-friendly than simply U 73.

I see your point, but I prefer the present style for consistency reasons. It's only the notable stones that can be said to be known in that way. As for those that are not notable, I'd need to ask locals what they call them which would be too much work and it would be "unverifiable". The verifiability thing can be quite annoying when locals tell me interesting folklore about the stones, such as old curses that have come true.--Berig (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I figured that might be the case. I have been working on the text, and I think using the term 'runestone' specifically before the classificatory designations (e.g. Runestone U 73) helps a great deal and represents a good compromise. What do you say? Aryaman (Enlist!) 21:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Style: In the piped links to specific styles, use either the common name (i.e. Urnes style) or both in the shown text. Also, link to the specific section of the Runestone styles article when appropriate.

Lead:

Paragraph 1:

• Style: “… a large group of 30 …”: Decide for one or the other, i.e. either ‘large’ or ‘30’.
• Style: “… that talk of voyages …”: Stones don’t normally ‘talk’; ‘describe’, ‘document’, etc. would be more appropriate.
• Style: “… the name Greece …”: No need to specify that it is a name; “… stones that mention Greece …” would suffice.
• Style: “In Sweden…”: This needs to be specified. From para 2, we discover that Greece Runestones are only found in Sweden. Yet this statement makes it seem as though ‘only in Sweden does the number of runestones mentioning Greece compare to that of the England runestones”, as if there are others outside of Sweden. Please specify and correct the phrase in para 2 accordingly.
• Style: “… compares only …”: This is somewhat unclear. Are there more Greece or England Runestones? Consider reframing the sentence.

Paragraph 2:

• Style Question: “… styles of the rune stones …”: (1) Link ‘styles’ to Runestone styles; (2) Should ‘rune stone’ be written as one word, i.e. ‘runestones’? If not, ignore, but make sure all occurrences are uniform (i.e. para 5, etc.).
• Verification: “… The styles of the rune stones … with the Younger Futhark.”: Could you put up a reference for this claim?

Well, if you can find an older runestone (i.e. with the Older Futhark) that mentions Greece it would be a sensation ;). Do you really want a ref for this?--Berig (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Style: “… The styles of the rune stones … with the Younger Futhark.”: Move the subsidiary clause (“and they were engraved”, etc.) to the front of the sentence. As it is, the clause sounds like it is governed by “suggest”. (My suggestion: “The styles of the rune stones, engraved in Old Norse in the Younger Futhark runic script, suggest that they were raised during the Viking Age until 1130.”)

Paragraph 3:

• Style: “The main reason why …” etc.: Let your sources do the explaining, i.e. eliminate phrases like “this is why” and rephrase them with something like “Jansson (1980) argues that…” or “According to Jansson (1980), …”. Otherwise your text comes across as original research.

I think it would be undue to name Jansson as the originator. You can find roughly the same phrase in Harrison and Svensson (2007) and in Larsson (2002). IMO, it's too mainstream to be attributed to any particular scholar.--Berig (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Verification: “Contrary to the traditional stereotype…”: Please cite a standard reference for this ‘traditional stereotype’, so that readers can research that as well. If this is not a traditional academic stereotype, then no citation would be needed, but consider rephrasing to something like ‘popular stereotype’.

Paragraph 4:

• Style: “…died for the Emperor …”: Perhaps “… died in the service of the Byzantine Emperor …”.
• Style: “These are, however…”: Consider replacing with the proper noun, i.e. “The Greece Runestones, however…”.
• Style: Missing comma after “Italy Runestones”.

Paragraph 5:

• Style: Mention that the following list is organized according to location.
• Style: “… of the runestones …”: Insert ‘Greece’ here as well.
• Style: “de facto”: Put in italics.

U 73

• Verification: A citation for the date?

I have decided to remove the dates, since I have discovered scholars don't give exactly the same time spans.--Berig (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Style: “…the runes talk of several landmarks…”: “The Hägerstalund inscription refers to the existence of more than one landmark” or something similar.
• Style: “… Greece as Varangians, and it was probably …”: Eliminate “and it was”.
• Style: Inga did not likely “inherit her sons”, but instead received inheritance from her sons. Correct the remainder accordingly.
• Style: “The runemaster Visäte was contracted …”, etc.

U 104

• Style: Either “in 1687” or “in the year 1687”.
• Style: “… because king James of England …”: “…upon the request of king James of England…”, etc.
• Verification: A citation for the date?

U 136

• Style: Use a dablink to refer to the Broby bro Runestones; correct opening sentence accordingly.

U 358

• Verification: "They may have been early members of the Varangian guard.": This claim should have a reference if it is not to be seen as OR.

As a group these runestones tell of members of the Varangian Guard, so I don't see anything controversial in the statement. I'll just remove the sentence, though.--Berig (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

U 374

• Style: “… the rune stone was lost, and when it was found…”: Perhaps: “… and when it was recovered …”? Also, were they completely destroyed, or only partly?
• Verification: Citation for the date?

Södermanland

• Style: “It was raised…”: It? What was raised? The previous sentence speaks of two stones. Adjust accordingly.

Sö 163

• Style: “divided up gold”: in quotation marks to show it is a quote and not to be taken literally.

Sö 165

• See Sö 163 above.

ToC

I have tried to shorten the ToC, by removing the lowest level of the subheadings. I have marked transliterations and translations with italics and quotation marks instead.--Berig (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)